Peter Sammons casts his mind back to the 1980s
Who Cares, Wins?
I’m probably one of the only people of my cohort who actually read The Brandt Report back in the 1980s. At that time I was keen on political expression and thought Mankind might be able to create for himself an improved world. As a Christian (or at least a church attender) I was not overly dewey-eyed in the 1980s about Mankind’s prospects, but thought that the Brand Report at least offered a rational way forward. To that extent I supported it.
The Brandt Report was written by the Independent Commission, first chaired by Willy Brandt, in 1980. Established in 1977 the ‘Independent Commission for International Developmental Issues’ aimed to assess international development questions . The former German Chancellor was nominated as Head by Robert McNamara, then the World Bank President. The resulting report provided an assessment of drastic differences in the economic development of the Global North and Global South, identifying a chasm in standards of living along the North-South divide. It argued for large transfer of resources from developed to developing countries.
The countries North were (still are) extremely wealthy due to trade in manufactured goods, whereas the countries South suffered poverty due to their trade in intermediate goods, with low export incomes. Brandt envisaged a new kind of global security. It built its arguments on a pluralist perspective that combined several social, economic and political perils together with classical military insecurities. Twenty years later, in 2001, the Brandt Report was updated by James Quilligan, who had been Information Director for the Brandt Commission between 1980 and 1987. His updated report was called “The Brandt Equation.”
The Brandt Line
The Brandt Line was a visual depiction of the North-South divide between their economies, based on GDP per capita. It encircled the world at a latitude of 30° N, passing between North and Central America, north of Africa, the Middle East and most of East Asia, but lowered towards the south to include Japan, Australia, and New Zealand above the line. Essentially it pictured the global rich to the North, and global poor to the South.
Looking for peace
In a passage that today seems remarkably prescient, the Commission’s Report ‘North–South’ clearly pinpointed what it saw as the principal threats to global order: “If reduced to a simple denominator, this Report deals with peace. War is often thought of in terms of military conflict, or even annihilation. But there is a growing awareness that an equal danger might be chaos as a result of mass hunger, economic disaster, environmental catastrophes, and terrorism. So we should not think only of reducing the traditional threats to peace, but also of the need for change from chaos to order”.
Read in the light of today’s potential climate change, mass starvation, and the realities of global terrorism in the past 20 years, it appears prophetic. But despite the enormity of the issues that it was being suggested had to be faced if progress was to be made, from the outset, the measured and optimistic tone of the Report was clearly discernible:
“the moral dangers threatening our children and grandchildren can be averted; we have the chance whether we are living in the North or South, East or West, if we are determined to do so, to shape the world’s future in peace and welfare, in solidarity and dignity”.
Main analyses and associated recommendations of the Commission were set out in the 17 chapters that make up “North–South”. Usefully, a full summary of the Commission’s principal recommendations was provided as Annex 1 (pp. 282–292), under each of the main chapter headings.
As Christians, we can perceive there is indeed limited utility and limited truth in what Brandt called for. But two things Brand could not take into account: (1) the sinfulness of Mankind’s heart (2) specific and egregious rebellion against God foretold in Scripture. These spiritual outcomes mean that Mankind cannot self-save. Yet we must applaud Brand and his attempts to search out a better way.
Money for peace?
Essentially Brandt warned that if the West failed to transfer wealth and democracy to the developing world, the developing world would at some point export its troubles to the West. Well, that’s how I read the Report back in the 1980s! Today mass migration indeed suggests that the world is becoming homogenous, and political, religious and cultural problems are indeed widely exported. I think especially of Islamic violence. Brandt’s ideas, in brief:
*Poorest Countries
Action program consisting of emergency and long term measures to assist the least developed countries, particularly in Africa and Asia. Such a program would require additional financial assistance in excess of US$4 billion per annum at 1980 prices for the 20 year period from 1980 to 2000, to provide loans for regional projects in healthcare, disease eradication, water, soil and afforestation projects, industry, and transport.
*Hunger and Food
Ending mass hunger and malnutrition was identified as a major target. Low income countries should increasingly meet their food requirements, through expanded financial flows for agricultural development, thereby reducing food imports.
*Population: Growth, Movements, and Environment
The Commission stated its belief that development policies should include national population programs aiming at a satisfactory balance between population and resources. Family planning should be freely available to all. Migrant workers should be assured fair treatment and the rights of refugees to asylum and legal protection strengthened.
*Disarmament and Development
Attention was drawn to the terrible danger to world stability posed by the arms race, and of the resources that are thereby diverted from peaceful development. Every effort should be made to secure international agreements to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. A globally respected peacekeeping mechanism is needed to be built up, strengthening the role of the United Nations. The international community should become aware of the consequences of arms transfers and the export of arms producing facilities and reach agreement to restrain such activities to areas of conflict and tension.
*The Task of the South
Social and economic reforms were also required within developing countries in order to complement the international environment for development, which itself needs to be more favourable. The redistribution of productive resources and incomes was called for where this had not already taken place. It was envisaged that broader changes would include expanded social services for the poor, agrarian reform, and the stimulation of small scale enterprises. The development potential of the informal sector needs to be appreciated and indigenous technological capacity strengthened.
*Energy
A call was made for the orderly transition from high dependence on increasingly scarce non-renewable energy sources, and it was noted that prices that reflect long-term scarcities will play an important role in this transition. Orderly and predictable price changes are important in facilitating a smooth development of the world economy. Special arrangements including financial assistance should be made to ensure supplies to the poorer developing countries.
*Industrialization and World Trade
The industrialization of developing countries was seen as providing increasing opportunities for world trade and should therefore be facilitated as a matter of international policy. It was argued that protectionism threatens the future of the world economy and is inimical to the long-term interests of developing and developed countries alike. Protectionism by industrialized nations against the exports of developing nations needs to be rolled back.
*The World Monetary Order
It was argued that reform of the international monetary system needed to be undertaken urgently by all interested parties. These should involve improvements in the exchange rate regime, the reserve system, the balance of payments adjustment process, and the overall management of the system, which should permit the participation of the whole international community.
*International Organizations and Negotiations
It was central to the Brandt Commission that policies, agreements, and institutions in the field of international economic, financial, and monetary cooperation should be guided by the principle of universality. It was recommended that the United Nations system needed to be made more efficient and strengthened. Further, it was suggested that the performance of the various multilateral organizations in the field of international development should be monitored regularly, by means of a high level advisory body. Increased attention needed to be paid to educating public opinion and the younger generation, in particular, about the importance of international cooperation in the field of development. It was suggested that limited occasional summit meetings of world leaders should be held to advance the cause of consensus and change.
Not a prophet
Brandt failed to anticipate ‘globalisation’ and the astonishing success of the global trading system, commencing in the 1990s. Via these, much of the world has indeed been lifted out of poverty in a way that Brandt simply missed. We all did! Whilst Covid lockdowns put world development on hold (and in some cases reversed it) nevertheless the picture in 2024 is vastly improved over 1980.
The Cold War ended, until re-stoked by ‘Russia’ and its invasion of Ukraine. The interconnection of China to the world community was an implication that, again, Brandt simply did not foresee. Whatever else Willi Brandt was, he was no ‘prophet’ in the sense of accurately foretelling everything lying ahead! The rise of China and her geopolitical ambitions was also not anticipated by Brandt. Such developments that seem so commonplace today, should give us pause for thought as we listen to today’s secular ‘prophets of doom’. Beyond that, as Christians we must acknowledge that ultimately, God is in control and is working out His purposes.
What Brand called for has echoes in today’s ‘Build Back Better’ and climate change responses, including green investment, intra-national regulation, taxation and targeted subsidies, ‘leading by example’, ‘education’, and so on. Much of this ambition is planned to occur at sub-national level and within cities, where the majority of Earth’s population today live. Today’s mantra is that there is ‘a lot more governments can do to reduce emissions and address climate change’. The United Nations Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs) are the natural heir to the Brand Commission’s overall ambition for global development.
Christian Comment
Brandt and its modern counterparts pose a conundrum for Christians. It is undoubtedly true that this is a fallen world, and accordingly entails issues of profound inequality. Much western wealth is built, albeit indirectly, upon developing world poverty and political backwardness.
The Brandt Report failed so much as to mention systemic corruption (or ‘grand corruption’ as some now call it). Grand corruption (see e.g. Transparency International) is potentially the biggest single brake on social and political progress globally, yet is never discussed in any serious international forum. As far as I know, the United Nations has nothing to say about it.
Inequality questions raise an age-old debate about how much, as Christians, we should press for social change and development. And how much should we (quite literally) distrust such developments, which can often be used as a smokescreen to introduce all sorts of evil ‘social agendas’, under the general heading of ‘Progressivism’, AKA Cultural Marxism?
We are NEVER going to develop this world into some ‘Nirvana’ of happiness and equality. Yet at the same time Jesus’ specific instructions on how we interrelate with others (as exemplified in the Sermon on the Mount) continue to ring in our collective ears. We DO have a responsibility.
Ultimately, our pressing task – in fact our only task – is to preach and model the good news of the Kingdom, in season and out of season. Don’t invest too much effort in trying to make the word slightly better, because we know that Armageddon beckons. We cannot avert Armageddon, it is history foretold. Perhaps the prayer of St Francis of Assisi can be helpful: “Lord, make me an instrument of your peace: where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy”.
Or even better, let us pray for strength and wisdom to live out Mathew Chapters 5, 6 and 7. That is our task.
Recent Comments